The several transmission efficiencies would be on or near the best in the World. There is no reason for it to be otherwise. As for the power of the engines and motors, yes these are unknown.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Jura The idiot
General
OK some trends/proportions then like "assuming the same turbines, an increase in the available electric power of GOGAG would be about 50% of COGLAG, while for IEP ..." (obviously I just wrote an example, not something I claim)
Jura The idiot
General
unimportant question: what would be the differences in size, weight of 'Reduction gearbox' and 'Gearbox' above
thanks
I think this is a complete unknown at this point until somebody on the inside tells us exactly how many diesel generators of what output as well as the specs of the electric motor that would be central to this question. I know that the British Type 45 uses two 20MW electric motors, one for each shaft, so I would expect an IEP 055 to use at least two 30-40MW motors? I don't know anything about Chinese navalized electric motors, unfortunately.
That drawing is obviously not to scale. The actual transmission (gearbox+clutch+reduction gearbox) would be housed inside a unit probably smaller than the GT itself.
Jura The idiot
General
actually I hoped you would write more about modern warship propulsion (things I've always wanted to know but was afraid to ask
but yeah, it would be vague hereof course not
well using google I couldn't find even data for AB destroyers ... could you point me to some webpage or perhaps a book (I don't have anything newer than Modern Naval Combat by Miller & Miller, now I see it's 1986 LOL!) where I would find the type of stuff I was asking about here
The electric engines in this system are really tiny (at least compared to the reduction gears and the gas turbines).
It seems a similar system (the picture above is the Lockheed-Martin system, the system used is from L-3) is intended to be retrofitted on Arleigh Burkes and the electric motors should be enough for up to 13knots ()
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
I admit I didn't understand that chart (apparently it comes from the NG leaflet: )
'Main Reduction Gear (Modified)' appears to be huge
does anybody know what's the current status of that endeavor ('installing a hybrid electric drive (HED) system on 34 Flight IIA Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers in a bid to lower the fuel costs of the ships')? I can't even see the date when this article appeared
EDIT
oops, in top-left corner it says Winter 2016 ...
Last edited:
Hey folks, unfortunately let’s begin with off topic. Thank you very much for your support, by highlighting the offensive character of ironmans reply. I dunno if it was his intention, but for sure it draws the attention from the content of the thread and my question to him. And I think, for what I’ve seen in the past from him and your statements, that this is a kind of pattern.
As I mentioned, I’m following this forum for several years, therefore I am familiar with some guys that need to scoff at others arguments to demonstrate reputation from a towered position. I’ve seen that in particular and extreme in CDF, what really annoyed me and keeps me from ever writing there again. The one or other jerk here, that has offensive speech as his strong „argument“ for whatever reason, is acceptable for me. That’s these days somehow regular forum style everywhere else, and sadly here to. According the offensive part and the delicate tulip allegation, well that speaks for itself and opens up the question who really has to calm down. Whoever called someone ass, I better not try to get in, at least it wasn't me, what can be reviewed in that overseeable amount of posts I made. But never mind.
I am wandering, why someone who has an impressive record of discussing details with others to the blood and impressing with sticking to semantics in others posts, in that case is so loose and in result offending without reason in speech… Saying it simple, I don't take him serious that he would try this with me in real life face to face. Somehow he needs that style, but I don't think, that outside these forums there is enough platform for him to get the confrontation he searches. Anyhow if that is going on, for me it will be just an easy reminder to ignore someone until he reaches a certain level of politeness. Like some wise guy taught me: Never argue with a fool, people might not see the difference. Thus not naming him a fool, but giving my impression, that he sometimes seems to act like one.
So far off topic, now to the arguments:
regarding my posts #2793 and #2800
Both CGI’s (the ones with IEP) by a little research turn out to have a little bit more than a fanboys wet dream background as they where published in magazins (one as a centerfold) and as downloadable content by junshig.com (Shanghai Anchang Network Security Technology Co.L.). This is stuff with commercial background, sold on the Chinese customer marked. Maybe with fanboys as customers in view, but with a certain level of credibility that is needed to get sold (although to admit, not everything that was announced has become true). But in my perspective that’s somewhat different than a pale nerd sitting in his room with photoshop, depicting his military fantasies.
For sure, the configuration of the GT’s in that CGI shouldn’t be taken that seriously, it wasn’t my intention if read carefully. But questioning the CG’s at all and comparing them with a picture of the YETI is ridiculous. Calling that CGI’s almost certainly wrong, is only possible if one has almost certainly true background information. Be my guest to share them, thats what we are here for.
Comparing the CG's with what is happening at Jiangnan and Dalian furthermore reveals that there is enough truth in them (not making them instantly the blueprints of the 055), but clearly linking them to reality, making a comparison to a „Star Destoyer“ with Ion Cannons or a classification as "certainly wrong", obsolete. The YETI in contrast to the 055 is a mythical creature, something ironman should discuss with Reinhold Messner, if he is so eager to do so. And it is a lousy try to turn a serious discussion into something ridiculous.
Well, I can’t understand where one will read that I take the CGI’s as an „evidence" for IEP. Reading carefully with attention on the words and not the intention what one wants to read out of them, makes it much easier to get into discussion with each other.
Again, talking the configuration of the GT’s in that CG’s wasn’t my intention. It wasn’t my question at all, however one will read my post intentionally. I agree, it is painstaking to discuss the arrangement in detail. Maybe, one has to read my question with higher attention… To name it clear, I was interested, if someone has some profound background information on IEP at 055. And with my additional arguments in #2800 that where well ignored, I made clear that I have an interest to discuss that issue not because of the CG, but on the other informations that are available on that topic as well.
regarding my statement in #2801
"anyone can", if really interested in that matter, browse through libraries of naval shipbuilding literature. There is given great backgroundinformation, how and why system integration of sophisticated weapon systems and electronics has become the most critical and time consuming issue at building modern complex naval units. In comparison, the share of costs as an indicator for complexity and time consuming work for a destroyer: 29% electronics, 24% weapons, 9% propulsion and power transmission, 13% hull and Equipment, + a bunch of different items. Furthermore, integration of well tested modern electronics and weapon suites has made the construction of a naval vessel as ten times more complicated as commercial vessels. It is also stated, that tested equipment, that is used on a testbed-class still has mayor issues, with integration on a new platform. Why do I think, that China has changed in naval vessel building self confidence, and my „lesson learned“ is true?
First of all, calling the 052D in principle the same platform as the 052C with some minor changes (same with 054A and the 054) ignores the fact, that some of the weapons and electronic systems changed, thus leading to a redesign of some internal structures and higher effort for system integration (as I discussed above). Again, the tough job is not up to the hull, it is about the overall system integration. Changes in system, lead to risks of system integration.
Furthermore my judgement was, that Chinese Shipbuilding changed. They learned a lot, with the earlier classes and have new technologies for risk minimization (computer aided production simulation f.e.). So that they are able, to do the more complicated job with more complex and more sophisticated classes, without prototyping, evaluating and changing in single follow on steps. They have found ways to minimize the risk of integration of new systems, enabling them to build the initial units of a class simultaneously. The 055 is somewhat evidence for it. That will be the new mayor combatant of the PLAN, with the most sophisticated tech, with a brand new hull design… How can they build 4 initial units simultaneously without a real predecessor class? The answer: the lesson learned, no matter what one likes it or not, China has made some critical steps in shipbuilding methods and technology. Does that give any indication about the IEP on the 055, for sure not. And I would agree, that building 4 at a time is likely an indication that China is not going the risky step of IEP integration.
That leaves my kind first question in that thread on the table. Is there any reliable information that IEP is going to be incorporated in 055? The answers that can be read (ignoring that offending theatre) summed up: no, not so far. Maybe on a test unit or on a follow on class.
THX so far.
As I mentioned, I’m following this forum for several years, therefore I am familiar with some guys that need to scoff at others arguments to demonstrate reputation from a towered position. I’ve seen that in particular and extreme in CDF, what really annoyed me and keeps me from ever writing there again. The one or other jerk here, that has offensive speech as his strong „argument“ for whatever reason, is acceptable for me. That’s these days somehow regular forum style everywhere else, and sadly here to. According the offensive part and the delicate tulip allegation, well that speaks for itself and opens up the question who really has to calm down. Whoever called someone ass, I better not try to get in, at least it wasn't me, what can be reviewed in that overseeable amount of posts I made. But never mind.
I am wandering, why someone who has an impressive record of discussing details with others to the blood and impressing with sticking to semantics in others posts, in that case is so loose and in result offending without reason in speech… Saying it simple, I don't take him serious that he would try this with me in real life face to face. Somehow he needs that style, but I don't think, that outside these forums there is enough platform for him to get the confrontation he searches. Anyhow if that is going on, for me it will be just an easy reminder to ignore someone until he reaches a certain level of politeness. Like some wise guy taught me: Never argue with a fool, people might not see the difference. Thus not naming him a fool, but giving my impression, that he sometimes seems to act like one.
So far off topic, now to the arguments:
regarding my posts #2793 and #2800
Both CGI’s (the ones with IEP) by a little research turn out to have a little bit more than a fanboys wet dream background as they where published in magazins (one as a centerfold) and as downloadable content by junshig.com (Shanghai Anchang Network Security Technology Co.L.). This is stuff with commercial background, sold on the Chinese customer marked. Maybe with fanboys as customers in view, but with a certain level of credibility that is needed to get sold (although to admit, not everything that was announced has become true). But in my perspective that’s somewhat different than a pale nerd sitting in his room with photoshop, depicting his military fantasies.
For sure, the configuration of the GT’s in that CGI shouldn’t be taken that seriously, it wasn’t my intention if read carefully. But questioning the CG’s at all and comparing them with a picture of the YETI is ridiculous. Calling that CGI’s almost certainly wrong, is only possible if one has almost certainly true background information. Be my guest to share them, thats what we are here for.
Comparing the CG's with what is happening at Jiangnan and Dalian furthermore reveals that there is enough truth in them (not making them instantly the blueprints of the 055), but clearly linking them to reality, making a comparison to a „Star Destoyer“ with Ion Cannons or a classification as "certainly wrong", obsolete. The YETI in contrast to the 055 is a mythical creature, something ironman should discuss with Reinhold Messner, if he is so eager to do so. And it is a lousy try to turn a serious discussion into something ridiculous.
Well, I can’t understand where one will read that I take the CGI’s as an „evidence" for IEP. Reading carefully with attention on the words and not the intention what one wants to read out of them, makes it much easier to get into discussion with each other.
Again, talking the configuration of the GT’s in that CG’s wasn’t my intention. It wasn’t my question at all, however one will read my post intentionally. I agree, it is painstaking to discuss the arrangement in detail. Maybe, one has to read my question with higher attention… To name it clear, I was interested, if someone has some profound background information on IEP at 055. And with my additional arguments in #2800 that where well ignored, I made clear that I have an interest to discuss that issue not because of the CG, but on the other informations that are available on that topic as well.
regarding my statement in #2801
"anyone can", if really interested in that matter, browse through libraries of naval shipbuilding literature. There is given great backgroundinformation, how and why system integration of sophisticated weapon systems and electronics has become the most critical and time consuming issue at building modern complex naval units. In comparison, the share of costs as an indicator for complexity and time consuming work for a destroyer: 29% electronics, 24% weapons, 9% propulsion and power transmission, 13% hull and Equipment, + a bunch of different items. Furthermore, integration of well tested modern electronics and weapon suites has made the construction of a naval vessel as ten times more complicated as commercial vessels. It is also stated, that tested equipment, that is used on a testbed-class still has mayor issues, with integration on a new platform. Why do I think, that China has changed in naval vessel building self confidence, and my „lesson learned“ is true?
First of all, calling the 052D in principle the same platform as the 052C with some minor changes (same with 054A and the 054) ignores the fact, that some of the weapons and electronic systems changed, thus leading to a redesign of some internal structures and higher effort for system integration (as I discussed above). Again, the tough job is not up to the hull, it is about the overall system integration. Changes in system, lead to risks of system integration.
Furthermore my judgement was, that Chinese Shipbuilding changed. They learned a lot, with the earlier classes and have new technologies for risk minimization (computer aided production simulation f.e.). So that they are able, to do the more complicated job with more complex and more sophisticated classes, without prototyping, evaluating and changing in single follow on steps. They have found ways to minimize the risk of integration of new systems, enabling them to build the initial units of a class simultaneously. The 055 is somewhat evidence for it. That will be the new mayor combatant of the PLAN, with the most sophisticated tech, with a brand new hull design… How can they build 4 initial units simultaneously without a real predecessor class? The answer: the lesson learned, no matter what one likes it or not, China has made some critical steps in shipbuilding methods and technology. Does that give any indication about the IEP on the 055, for sure not. And I would agree, that building 4 at a time is likely an indication that China is not going the risky step of IEP integration.
That leaves my kind first question in that thread on the table. Is there any reliable information that IEP is going to be incorporated in 055? The answers that can be read (ignoring that offending theatre) summed up: no, not so far. Maybe on a test unit or on a follow on class.
THX so far.
Jura The idiot
General
I didn't get which destroyer you're talking about
29+24+9+13 is 75, so I'm wondering what your "bunch of different items" is
- Status